I think it ties in with the general theme of Elm trying to guide you into making the right choices - if there's no real use case for LocalStorage other than using it as a cache, why expose the low level bindings and allow people to shoot themselves in the foot with them?
On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 7:22:44 AM UTC, David Andrews wrote: > > Thanks for pointing me to that, and the Justification section therein > answers my next question. However, I don't see why it makes sense to > conflate the use of the web storage API with a cache pattern. It seems to > me that the best way to do this would be to make the low-level API > available and implement a cache on top of that. > > On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 2:55:42 AM UTC-4, Peter Damoc wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 8:38 AM, David Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I would really like to be able to use local storage in elm. There have >>> been several libraries that implement this, but none of them have been >>> updated to elm 0.17. So far the advice I've seen is just to wait, but I'm >>> tired of waiting. >>> >> >> It's not really storage when you have a hard limit of 5MB of data. >> persistent-cache <https://github.com/elm-lang/persistent-cache> will >> probably end up covering the uses for that kind of functionality. >> >> You should be using ports but if you really really want to use the >> unreleased library, fork it, tag it with 1.0.0 and install it with >> elm-github-install. >> >> >> -- >> There is NO FATE, we are the creators. >> blog: http://damoc.ro/ >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
